ScrewYouApple is a tiny Pentalobe screw-inspired film of action that plans to formally ask Apple to stop screwing customers & Think Different again! ScrewYouApple will explore Apple’s multi-billion dollar cash-generating machine (possibly including the powerful App store) and also document my journey to formally ask Apple to stop screwing customers and get Apple to return to the inspiring ideals set out in Apple’s iconic Think Different “The Crazy Ones” Ad campaign. In a creative manner for a documentary, I intend to use a Shareholder Proposal as defined by the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (specifically Rule 14a-8) to formally ask Apple to Think Different again!
Please support the making of ScrewYouApple by choosing a perk on the right of the screen to join us on this epic journey, to try to change the world for the better.
If the 1989 documentary “Roger & Me” could be simplistically summed up as a film about director Michael Moore pursuing General Motor CEO Roger Smith to confront him about GM’s harm to Flint, Michigan, then may be ScrewYouApple could also be simplistically summed up as a feature-length documentary about crowd funders & supporters of ScrewYouApple combining our voices to try toformally ask Apple senior executives and shareholders to stop screwing customers and to Think Different again.
The creative spark for ScrewYouApple came from the tiny Pentalobe screws inside a MacBook Pro (see picture). I wondered what design/engineering purposes would the five-pointed Pentalobe screws have in serving Apple or its customers? After doing some research (CNet & iFixit), I learned the tamper-resistant Pentalobe screws (now used in wide range of Apple devices including iPhones) are there to stop customers from performing simple upgrades/repairs like replacing a battery, etc (in a sense to “screw” the customers) so that Apple can make more money. These tiny screws can be viewed as tips of Apple icebergs floating on top a sea change.
With your support, ScrewYouApple will explore the Apple’s multi-billion cash-generating machine (possibly including the powerful App store) and also document my journey toformally ask Apple to stop screwing us (one possible question: stop the use of Pentalobe screws) and get Apple to Think Different again (returning to the inspiring ideals set out in “The Crazy Ones“). (more about “formally ask” in Q&A #2)
Specifically,ScrewYouApple will include a look at the changes/evolution happening in Apple from the 1997 Think Different days to the 2013 Apple of today holding billions of cash. And to reach out to “screwed” Apple customers/former fans to hear and collect some of their stories. By makingScrewYouApple a crowd-supported feature-length documentary, the film aims to transform our singular voices into something loud and clear enough for Apple to notice. The making of ScrewYouApple can be viewed as an example of Marshall McLuhan’s famous quote, “The Medium is the Message.” (more details in Q&A #3)
Please support the making of ScrewYouApple by choosing a perk on the right to join us on this epic journey, to try to change the world for the better. The film’s current target completion date will depend on when I can “formally ask” Apple but you will receive many updates and video clips to watch from me along our epic journey if the fixed-funding campaign goal is met by the deadline!
Thanks for your support in making this film possible,
Kempton Lam (director & producer)
P.S. I don’t hate Apple. In fact, you may be surprised by Q&A #1.
Kempton’s filmography
In 2004, Kempton single-handedly directed, produced, shot, and edited his documentary directorial debut “Long Hair Revolution“. The 71 minutes Long Hair Revolution is a film about the then newly elected Hong Kong legislator Leung Kwok-hung (nickname “Long Hair”), a Che Guevara t-shirt wearing rebel/activist. In 2005, Long Hair Revolution world premiered at the Calgary International Film Festival.
Even if the current incarnations of SOPA and PIPA laws are stopped, this will just be one of the many battles in a long war. The industries and lobbyists will keep on pushing. It is up to us to ensure future incarnations of SOPA and PIPA are not overreaching thus doing more harm than good.
As one of the lead Fair Copyright for Canada Calgary organizers who has written articles, sent in personal submissions for parliamentary copyright committees, and organized protests since December 2007, I try to do my part to help shape Fair Copyright laws in Canada. Given that experience, I know the anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA has to be the beginning and we should be prepared to keep up the effort for sometime to come.
The following is one of Cory Doctorow‘s best speech. Cory is an editor of Boing Boing and one of the leading thinkers about Copyright. [HT my friend +Jan Rubak]
P.S. I can’t stop smiling when he starts talking, at ~12:49, about Canadian Heritage Minister [Twitter @JamesMoore_org].
Personal observation: Minister Moore believes in political debate and listening to citizen’s views as long as he can block you. See Twitter @no_mpjamesmoore
At this point, I’ve written way more about recent Canadian copyright law than I ever wished or planned to. But as a Canadian who cares about our digital future, I see I don’t have any choice but to make my voice heard and to keep an eye on things!
With a Harper majority government, judging from what the government tried to do previously, I expect to find it will kowtow to the US government and the lobbyists represented industrial giants and again try to ignore the loud complains by Canadians in the various copyright consultations.
“* IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT, JULY 6, 2011 – The University of Calgary has notified Access Copyright, the Copyright Collective, that as of September 1, 2011, the university will no longer operate under the Interim Tariff as presented by the Copyright Board in December 2010. Read the rest of this entry »
Anyone can submit apps for Apple’s approval in order to be available for sell at Apple App store. Now, I am curious what legal responsibility Apple has in ensuring the sellers actually have the proper rights? In particular, I wonder how does Apple ensure proper copyrights for foreign languages books?
I wonder if Apple simply asks all apps sellers to sign legal documents claiming they have proper legal and copyrights to sell whatever they try to sell and indemnify Apple in the process?
Wow, $2.99 for 712 books and $1.99 for 200+ books, what a deal if it is legit?! From what I can gather, Yi’s books collection has been available for purchase at least since a Oct 30, 2010 update. And Ni’s books collection has been available for purchase since Dec 30, 2010.
Both ebook collections are being sold by a seller name “Jingang Chen”. I don’t know if this “Jingang Chen” person has the proper legal rights to sell the books collections or not, I do hope Ni’s and Yi’s authorized publishers can check and confirm if these two book apps are indeed legit.
Hate to see anyone selling stolen copyrighted materials so internationally and so easily.
You have got to ask yourself, – who will spend time going through years (across 2005,06,07) of internal and informal emails (obtained under the under the Access to Information Act) between myself and one of my consultancy contractors (Industry Canada), a past reviewer’s report of an early draft, selectively reading my publications since 2001, and producing about 20 printed pages (in two parts) of menacing rant appearing to try to undermine my (Andersen’s) research credibility and the Andersen-Frenz (2007) study for Industry Canada on “The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music”. [comment: Wow!]
Amazingly, this two-part diatribe (published in May and June 2010) attacking me and my research is published as an apparently ‘independent’ analysis representing facts and not taking sides in the ongoing international debate on how policy should respond to unauthorized filesharing on the Internet and the digital economy of the future.
The blogger is in fact Chris Castle from ‘Christian L Castle Attorneys’ based in Los Angeles and San Francisco USA, and the firm’s web site lists that they represent the record labels, film studios, among others. Thus, one could consider they have a clear financial interest in the debate on intellectual property (IP) policy in the digital economy. Another blogger spreading this unsubstantiated gossip on the Internet is Bob Tatantino [sp? Tarantino] from Heenan Blaikie’s Entertainment Law Group in Toronto.
Is this type of work commissioned? Peer- reviewed? (not likely!), and what interests surround the making and publication of it? [comment: Good questions.]
Is it hypocritical, or even dishonest, that firms so closely linked to the interests on the one side of the copyright debate on digital economy policy present themselves as neutral carriers of ‘truth’ while accusing a neutral academic study of taking sides? Do these firms have a conflict of interest? [comment: Interesting questions again.]
Interestingly, I was not informed of the publication of this work (but realized its existence as I received a number of unusual emails over the summer), which explains my late response.”
“The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used – whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices – the lock trumps virtually all other rights. In other words, in the battle between two sets of property rights – those of the intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property – the IP rights holder always wins. This represents market intervention for a particular business model by a government supposedly committed to the free market and it means that the existing fair dealing rights (including research, private study, news reporting, criticism, and review) and the proposed new rights (parody, satire, education, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies) all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on their content or device. Moreover, the digital lock approach is not limited to fair dealing – library provisions again include a requirement for digital copies to self-destruct within five days and distance learning teaching provisions require the destruction of materials 30 days after the course concludes.”
My initial reaction was, “What the heck? Did the Government of Canada (the ministers) listen to Canadians in the Canada-wide online and offline consultations _at all_ ?”
May be I shouldn’t have been surprised by the industrial biased when ministers Tony Clement and James Moore unveiled the bill at Electronic Arts instead of a more neutral location that might signified a more balanced approach to the two sets of property rights (rights holders’ vs consumers’).
Michael is more optimistic and generous and called the bill “Flawed But Fixable“. I am more pessimistic and, I think, more realistic in not having high hopes. I will try to read and understand different parts of C-32 and feedback from different people.
“The digital lock provisions are by far the biggest flaw in the bill, rules that some will argue renders it beyond repair. I disagree. The flaw must be fixed, but there is much to support within the proposal. There will undoubtedly be attacks on the fair dealing reforms and pressure to repeal them, along with the U.S. and the copyright lobby demanding that their digital lock provisions be left untouched. If Canadians stay quiet, both are distinct possibilities. If they speak out, perhaps the bill can be fixed. I’ll post an update of my 30 things you can do shortly.”
“The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
A “YouTube” clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it’s not for commercial gain.
A “notice-and-notice” system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law.
A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.”
Will read the bill in full to find out more when it is posted online.
*******
With this Notice Paper, looks like the bill is coming soon. Will have to take a closer look of the bill when it is tabled. [HT Michael Geist]
If Prof. Michael Geist is right in “PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks“, then this is very troubling development as it means the Harper government has not listened to Canadians’ concerns and the months of consultations across Canada were just for show.
Check out Jeff”s take on the iPad which he reboxed and returned to Apple.
P.S. Thanks to Jeff mentioning about Cory’s comment. I’ve now looked up this comment by Cory Doctorow and confirmed something I tried to block subconsciously when I was simply looking at the excitement of iPad. But Cory is right in writing,
“But the company that sells you your dishwasher doesn’t get to tell you which dishes you’re allowed to use. They don’t get to sue companies that make dishes that might possibly be loaded into the dishwasher. They don’t get to sue you for figuring out how to cook salmon in your dishwasher. They don’t get to sue O’Reilly if it publishes a recipe for dishwasher salmon.
Apple’s DRM isn’t useless. It is performing its function perfectly: scaring off innovators and sources of capital for innovation that seek to work outside its monopoly. To miss this is to miss everything.” [via Cory]
Professor Michael Geist has an interesting note that puts the 8,300+ submissions in the context of some numbers. Very informative stuff. Take a quick look.
“Position
Number of Supporters
Submissions against another Bill C-61 6138
Submissions in favour of shorter Copyright terms or against extending Copyright terms
5520
Submissions against anti-circumvention or in favour of limiting DRM/Digital locks 6641
Submissions in favour of stronger personal use/copying and backup protections including format shifting and time shifting rights
6242”
I hate to point out to supposed “lawyers” at CBC and iCopyright what law or court cases they need to read (assuming they know how to read), they can certainly start with 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, “CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada“. I thought any self-respecting copyright lawyers would have taken the time to read the case in the last 6 years. Ah, I guess I may have assumed wrong.
The public domain is the cultural property and intellectual heritage of an entire people and the entire world in which a given work is now unencumbered by copyright. It’s your public domain to use, adapt, preserve, promote, and enjoy.
Short live copyright! And long live the public domain!
“Industry Minister Tony Clement won’t talk about the secrets of ACTA. Instead, he’s pointed curious critics to Michael Geist’s website. This week, Michael explains why he’s the wrong man for that job.”
Posted by kempton 
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
Kempton - ideas Revolutionary 